Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate.
lol, what total bulls*** is this? Honestly, how do you even come up with such an absurd requirement? "Rate of evolution" is not a scientific constant, and absolutely no scientist will tell you it is. The rate that natural selection affects populations is contingent on hundreds if not thousands of factors, so no, you can't just slap a label on evolution saying that it occurs at a constant rate. You would have to take into account environmental factors, competition factors, mutation rates/factors, availability of resources, and any number of other outstanding factors, and you still wouldn't be able to perfectly predict a rate of anything. Especially in the case of ancient whales, where all we have to go off of to give us a timeline is the fossils themselves.
To wit, if you think ID is such a fact, give me a perfect constant rate of creation of new species. And if it is wrong even once, let me tell you that I will hold your own logic against you and say that ID is falsified immediately.
if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational charactristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.
Really? Mechanical engineering is identical to all sciences? Please define the precise mathematical constants involved in archaeology or the development of human societies. And if ID is a "real" science, hold yourself to your own standards for once and define the mechanism of creation in mathematical terms. And once again, if in a year that formula changes even a little, remember that ID is just wrong, end of story.
I also have no idea how you continue to get off saying that the theory must be right at its outset and never once be altered, or else it will be false. What kind of nonsense is that?
We have to remember here the difference between theory and hypothesis as the evo's push it. A theory has enough lines of evidence to back it and the foundational concepts have never been disproven. In mechanical engineering we have a theoretical concept of how the internal combustion engine is supposed to cause a specific effect and if the conceptual mechanism were to change as many times and as far as the mechanism of evolution has we would be back to the hypothetical stage.
Not true. Your combustion engine is a single example that exists within several theories. There is no "Theory of the modern combustion engine." Instead, the combustion engine is simply an aspect of scientific discovery. Discovering a flaw in our knowledge of the combustion engine would not automatically refute all of mechanical engineering on a moment's notice. Nor would it falsify the theories in physics and physical chemistry that it employs.
Your combustion engine is the equivalent of the ancient whale example within evolution. They are examples of scientific theories at work. Just like the very first concept of a combustion engine was likely not correct, our timeline for the ancient whale evolutionary line was not correct. As researchers and inventors discovered new methods and scientific understanding, their blueprints of the combustion engine became better and better, until there was actually a solid product. Even then, the system has been updated in light of greater understanding of the overlying theories used in making it. Just like how our understanding of the combustion engine has grown in the light of new evidence and knowledge, the evolutionary timeline for whales has had to be adjusted before the timeline is correct. So, unless you plan on telling me that the very first concept of a combustion engine was perfect in every way and never once altered to this day, your point is moot.
The whale timeline and the engine are examples that have taken years of work and discovery to refine, and they themselves are not theories, but examples of how theories can work.